Skip to main content
NCBI home page
Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection logoLink to Springer Nature - PMC COVID-19 Collection
. 2023 Jan 21;3(2):50. doi: 10.1007/s43546-023-00420-9

Nonprofit leadership dispositions

Janet R DeSimone 1, Laura A Roberts 1,✉
PMCID: PMC9862217  PMID: 36714499

Abstract

This exploratory study assessed the leadership dispositions of nonprofit leaders, particularly those in executive director roles or higher. The Nonprofit Leadership Dispositions Survey was completed by 99 nonprofit leaders in private human services nonprofits in New York State. Descriptive analysis was used to understand the dominant dispositions. The results indicated that, apart from prudence, participant responses demonstrated evidence of the dispositions and strengths commonly associated with successful leadership. Recommendations for leadership training and development programs, as well as nonprofit organizations, are suggested.

Keywords: Nonprofit, Leadership, Human services, Dispositions

Introduction

Research has demonstrated that nonprofit organizations in human services are reliant on the executive director for successful operations (Salamon and Sokolowski 2015). The role of the executive director has been identified as the key factor in driving organizational success (Carson 2011). Consequently, the success of these organizations is contingent upon the effective and efficient leadership of the executive director, who is responsible for overseeing the organization’s mission and day-to-day operations.

For over a decade, forecasts of a leadership deficit, with a mass exodus of baby boomers headed for retirement, have plagued human services nonprofits (Stewart and Kuenzi 2018; Landles-Cobb et al. 2015). Years later, candidates for leadership positions are abundant, with plenty of promising leaders lined up to fill openings left behind by retirees. However, although the availability of open leadership positions in nonprofit organizations continues to be plentiful, vacancies have less to do with retirement and limited candidates and more with high turnover rates. In fact, according to studies on nonprofit leaders, close to 70% of individuals serving in executive positions indicated that they expected to remain in their jobs for less than 6 years (Landles-Cobb et al. 2015; Kunreuther et al. 2013).

Scholars have examined leadership turnover and have provided insight into the scope of the problem. Nonprofit leaders report various challenges, including managing difficult employees, keeping up with technological advances, managing diversity, and competing with other organizations for funds amid a drop in available public funding (Regan 2016; Watson and Hoefer 2014). A recent study (Te 2021) found that seven out of ten most prominent challenges for nonprofit leaders are related to finances (resources and fundraising). Further, with significant burnout rates for practitioners in human services, recruiting and maintaining talented staff and managing boards are ongoing issues (Te 2021; Jenaro et al. 2007). Lastly, the COVID-19 pandemic had a substantial economic and social impact on human service nonprofits. In a survey distributed in June 2021, 78% of nonprofit leaders reported that the pandemic had a negative impact (e.g., fundraising, a shutdown of services, and releasing staff) (Martin et al. 2021).

Recent years have seen a shift in the definition of the leadership deficit from a general scarcity of leaders to a deficit in leadership development (Landles-Cobb et al. 2015). To address this issue, nonprofits have been advised to recruit more qualified leaders, and current leaders have been encouraged to hone their skills (Tierney 2006). However, extra training can be both burdensome and costly to nonprofit leaders, particularly considering they already tend to work more and receive less compensation than their for-profit peers (Ben-Ner et al. 2011). Additionally, there is mixed evidence regarding the effectiveness of leadership training programs (Pfeffer 2015).

The researchers, a leader educator and a counselor educator working within an all-graduate department of a public university, designed an exploratory study to gain insight into the individuals who opt to assume leadership roles in nonprofit organizations. The researchers adopted the notion of strength-based approaches as a basis for building human capacity (Welch et al. 2014). Thus, a survey was created to examine whether the dispositions and strengths of nonprofit leaders were in line with the existing research, and this was underpinned by a theoretical framework based on the characteristics and strengths associated with models of successful leadership.

Literature

Effective leadership

For years, Transformational Leadership has been widely studied and is regarded as the gold standard in leadership practices (Avolio et al. 2009). Guided by four tenets: Idealized Influence, Inspirational Motivation, Intellectual Stimulation, and Individualized Consideration (Avolio et al. 1999; Bass 1985), transformational leaders act in accordance with their values, serving as role models to the individuals around them and reinforcing the ideas that they stand to support. In other words, they present their real selves by “walking the walk.” In doing so, leaders earn the respect of their followers and inspire them to adopt behaviors that resemble the behaviors the leaders have been modeling (Goldman and Casey 2010). Transformational leaders tend to be both enthusiastic and optimistic about what they hope to achieve and are clear in articulating what they expect of others. They are also supportive of and encouraging to those they lead and trust them to take on challenging projects as well as problem solve, using “out-of-the-box” thinking. Finally, transformational leaders dedicate considerable time and attention toward assisting their staff in developing and achieving their own career aspirations (e.g., becoming an executive director). They are committed to providing their employees with honest feedback and support as needed, so that their employees continue to progress and develop the necessary skills to achieve their goals.

In addition to Transformational Leadership, many other models of leadership are regarded as highly effective; several share similar philosophies with and characteristics of transformational leadership, including Servant and Authentic Leadership (Carter and Greer 2013). However, each has one or more distinguishing features. For example, servant leaders tend to focus on the needs and development of staff rather than their own (Greenleaf 1977; Van Dierendonck 2011), a process characterized as spiritual (Smith et al. 2004). Authentic leaders focus on self-development, self-awareness, and self-discipline (Walumbwa et al. 2008; Schriesheim and Liu 2018) and value balanced information processing (Cooper et al. 2005).

Another aspect of leadership that has been studied is the traits of effective leaders (Northouse 2021). Trait Theory was found on the idea that only specific individuals possess the capacity to be great leaders because they have a specific set of innate traits (Kirkpatrick and Locke 1996; Bass 2008). However, although traits such as intelligence, self-confidence, determination, integrity, and sociability are often found in effective leaders, Behavioral Theory and Situational Theory argue that leaders can be developed with guidance, and their leadership is impacted by a variety of external factors, such as context (Northouse 2021).

Character strengths also have been identified as the “distinguishing features” of effective leaders (Sosik 2006). For example, a study examining empathy in health managers found that the construct of empathy was strongly associated with the ways leaders inspired their followers to exceed performance expectations (Skinner and Spurgeon 2005). Further, when leaders present as empathic, their staff perceive them more positively (Miller 2009). Authenticity is another character strength associated with positive outcomes in the workplace, including psychological well-being, productivity, and motivation (Hannah et al. 2011; Kifer et al. 2013).

The term grit also has emerged in the literature as a leadership character strength. The construct of grit is used to describe individuals who present with the endurance and stamina to stay on track with what they long to accomplish, despite challenges and barriers along the way. When faced with obstacles, the gritty individual finds a way around this and maintains focus on the goals he/she has set out to achieve, regardless of the time and effort required (Duckworth et al. 2007).

Present study

Researchers have explored the issues that arise from a lack of leadership in human services nonprofits, with particular attention given to the causes of this leadership shortfall and the inadequate qualities of leaders (Pearce et al. 2010). Some research has focused on identifying solutions to this dilemma, such as adopting specific leadership models or studying successful leaders. However, there is limited scholarship that investigates the positive attributes or dispositions that are most common among nonprofit executive directors in human services (Gibbons et al. 2013). This present study is an initial, descriptive study of the dispositions of nonprofit leaders in the field of human services, particularly those in executive director roles. This study is guided by the following question: What are the predominant dispositions associated with nonprofit executive directors?

The present study reports data from a state-wide survey of nonprofit executive directors (n = 99), or those who fit a similar leadership role (e.g., senior director).

Method

Research design

This study employed a descriptive analysis design to analyze clusters of questions from a dispositions survey organized around nine major leadership dispositions.

Participants

The researchers used two strategies to recruit participants: (1) posted messages on listservs of major nonprofit organizations; and (2) emailed individual nonprofit leaders from lists compiled through Internet research on nonprofits. It is difficult to calculate an accurate response rate since recruitment was wider than just targeted individuals via email. The researchers cannot distinguish a respondent who received a personalized email from one who responded to a link in a listserv message.

The criteria for participants were that they had to work at a private nonprofit organization in New York State which had existed for a minimum of 5 years. The nonprofit organization also had to focus on the human services sector. Although all survey respondents were from New York State, they represented a variety of regions/counties of the state, working at nonprofits in urban and suburban areas. Most respondents were female (66.6%), and most fell into the 40–54 (40.8%) or 55 or over (51%) age range.

Eighty percent of respondents possessed a master’s degree or higher, and 87.9% worked in the nonprofit sector for a minimum of 11 years, with 60.1% having over 20 years of nonprofit experience. Thirty percent worked for a counseling-related nonprofit; 45% worked for an organization that served individuals with disabilities; 12.5% worked for organizations that provided housing; while 12.5% worked for nonprofits that provided food services to those need. Many respondents listed other kinds of services provided by the nonprofits where they worked, including youth development, community educational outreach and domestic violence (see Table 1 for full demographic data).

Table 1.

Demographic variables for survey respondents

Variable Percentage (no.)ª
Gender
 Female 60.6 (60)
 Male 39.3 (39)
Ethnicity
 African American/Black 11.46 (11)
 American Indian/Alaskan Native/Aleut 0
 Asian/Pacific Islander 1.1 (1)
 Chicano/Latino/Hispanic 6.25 (6)
 Middle Eastern 0
 White/Caucasian 77.08 (74)
 Other 4.17 (4)
Age
 19–26 0
 27–39 8.1 (8)
 40–54 40.8 (40)
 55 or over 51 (50)
Educational level
 Associate degree 1 (1)
 Bachelor degree 17.9 (17)
 Master’s degree (completed or pursuing) 46.3 (44)
 Post Master’s degree (professional diploma, etc.) 20 (19)
 Doctoral degree (completed or pursuing) 13.7 (13)
Years of nonprofit experience teaching
 1–5 3 (3)
 6–10 9 (9)
 11–20 27.2 (27)
 20 or > 60.6 (60)
Primary focus of nonprofits
 Counseling/mental health 30.00 (12)
 Serving individuals with disabilities 45.00 (18)
 Providing housing assistance to individuals in need 12.50 (5)
 Providing food assistance to individuals in need 12.50 (5)
Open in a new tab

ªThe number of respondents varied because of missing cases

Measures and analysis

The Nonprofit Leadership Dispositions Survey, created by the researchers, had two main sections: (1) Demographics (9 items); and (2) Disposition Assessment (50 items), a 5-point Likert scale measuring dispositions, based on the existing research on dispositions highly correlated with leadership.

To validate the survey instrument, the following steps were taken: (1) Each item was selected or designed based on a review of the literature on dispositions and leadership and relevant instruments (or items from instruments) that could be adapted for this study (Leslie et al. 2015; Bonner and Obergas 2009; Kernis and Goldman 2006; Garton and Gringart 2005; Baron Cohen and Wheelwright 2004; Rushton 1981). (2) A panel of experts (individuals with experience working with or for nonprofits in a leadership capacity) was asked to review and comment on the instrument, resulting in some minor changes in wording for some items.

The Disposition Assessment section was organized around major leadership dispositions found in the literature, and each item corresponded with one of nine dispositions (see Fig. 1):

  1. Empathy (five items)—compassion; ability to understand and/or identify with the challenges and/or successes of another person;

  2. Openness (seven items)—ability to read staff; perspectives of various points of view;

  3. Ethics (four items)—confidentiality; trust;

  4. Trust (six items)—in staff; the belief people are competent and capable;

  5. Transactional versus transformational (seven items)—ability to focus on details versus larger picture—or both;

  6. Prudence (five items)—balancing career and life;

  7. Professional support (five items)—commitment to the professional growth or others; succession planning;

  8. Authenticity (five items)—personal convictions; values versus mission; and

  9. Grit (six items)—risk taking; adaptability.

Fig. 1.

Fig. 1

Open in a new tab

Leadership dispositions with corresponding survey questions

The survey took approximately 15–20 min to complete and was distributed online using Survey Monkey. Statistical analysis was conducted using SPSS version 25. The data obtained through the survey were summarized using frequency analyses. For Gender and Experience, mean differences in ratings were analyzed using t test. Frequencies revealed that there were insufficient cases using the initial categories of Experience, so categories were combined to create two main categories (less than 20 years compared with more than 20 years). Tests of significance were also calculated with findings presented for survey responses to several questions. (The level of significance was set at 0.05 because of the small number of respondents.)

Findings

Survey data on leadership dispositions (see Table 2) are summarized below, organized according to the nine major dispositions with which the survey items aligned.

Table 2.

Leadership disposition ratings

Percentage (no)ª
Disposition/question Almost always Often Perhaps Probably not Never
Empathy
 Q15 20.22 (18) 43.82 (39) 28.09 (25) 7.87 (7)
 Q17 8.31 (43) 39.33 (35) 10.11 (9) 2.24 (2)
 Q20 49.44 (44) 43.82 (39) 4.49% (4) 2.25 (2)
 Q46 25.84 (23) 46.07 (41) 16.85 (15) 11.24 (10)
 Q47 51.14 (45) 27.27 (24) 20.45 (18) 1.14% (1)
Openness
 Q14 37.08 (33) 43.82 (39) 16.85 (15) 2.25 (2)
 Q30 15.73 (14) 38.20 (34) 37.08 (33) 8.99 (8)
 Q32 25.84 (23) 62.92 (56) 10.11 (9) 1.12 (1)
 Q40 31.46 (28) 55.06 (49) 12.36 (11) 1.12 (1)
 Q44 14.77 (13) 54.55 (48) 22.73 (20) 7.95 (7)
 Q45 16.85 (15) 57.30 (51) 22.47 (20) 3.37 (3)
 Q59 67.42 (60) 25.84 (23) 4.49 (4) 2.25 (2)
Ethics
 Q18 75.28 (67) 20.22 (18) 3.37 (3) 1.12 (1)
 Q21 55.06 (49) 26.97 (24) 15.73 (14) 2.25 (2)
 Q35 8.99 (8) 20.22 (18) 24.72 (22) 40.45 (36) 5.62 (5)
 Q48 3.37 (3) 23.60 (21) 34.83 (31) 32.58 (29) 5.62 (5)
Trust
 Q12 6.74 (6) 52.81 (47) 38.20 (34) 2.25 (2)
 Q33 12.36 (11) 48.31 (43) 31.46 (28) 7.87 (7)
 Q36 10.11 (9) 32.58 (29) 35.96 (32) 20.22 (18) 1.12 (1)
 Q38 2.27 (2) 12.50 (11) 51.14 (45) 32.95 (29) 1.14 (1)
 Q53 1.12 (1) 13.48 (12) 33.71 (30) 39.33 (35) 12.36 (11)
 Q56 27.27 (24) 70.45 (62) 2.27 (2)
Transactional versus transformational
 Q24 23.86 (21) 45.45 (40) 26.14 (23) 4.55 (4)
 Q28 14.77 (13) 61.36 (54) 19.32 (17) 4.55 (4)
 Q29 38.20 (34) 50.56 (45) 8.99 (8) 2.25 (2)
 Q34 17.98 (16) 28.09 (25) 30.34 (27) 23.60 (21)
 Q42 23.60 (21) 48.31 (43) 26.97 (24) 1.12 (1)
 Q55 51.14 (45) 44.32 (39) 4.55 (4)
 Q58 29.21 (26) 52.81 (47) 17.98 (16)
Prudence
 Q16 24.72 (22) 39.33 (35) 14.61 (13) 17.98 (16) 3.37 (3)
 Q22 11.36 (10) 35.23 (31) 36.36 (32) 15.91 (14) 1.14 (1)
 Q31 69.32 (61) 22.73 (20) 7.95 (7)
 Q37 5.62 (5) 30.34 (27) 32.58 (29) 29.21 (26) 2.25 (2)
 Q39 57.95 (51) 21.59 (19) 13.64 (12) 4.55 (4) 2.27 (2)
Professional support
 Q13 31.82 (28) 45.45 (40) 15.91 (14) 6.82 (6)
 Q43 1.16 (1) 20.93 (18) 37.21 (32) 38.37 (33) 2.33 (2)
 Q50 29.55 (26) 65.91 (58) 3.41 (3) 1.14 (1)
 Q51 29.55 (26) 55.68 (49) 14.77 (13)
 Q54 14.94 (13) 45.98 (40) 27.59 (24) 11.49 (10)
Authenticity
 Q23 67.05 (59) 30.68 (27) 2.27 (2)
 Q41 34.83 (31) 37.08 (33) 20.22 (18) 7.87 (7)
 Q49 5.75 (5) 35.63 (31) 51.72 (45) 6.90 (6)
 Q52 60.67 (54) 34.83 (31) 4.49 (4)
 Q57 4.55 (4) 10.23 (9) 40.91 (36) 31.82 (28) 12.50 (11)
Grit
 Q10 3.37 (3) 38.20 (34) 51.69 (46) 6.74 (6)
 Q11 76.14 (67) 22.73 (20) 1.14 (1)
 Q19 37.08 (33) 57.30 (51) 5.62 (5)
 Q25 23.26 (20) 55.81 (48) 18.60 (16) 2.33 (2)
 Q26 40.91 (36) 53.41 (47) 5.68 (5)
 Q27 59.09 (52) 36.36 (32) 3.41 (3) 1.14 (1)
Open in a new tab

ªThe number of respondents varied because of missing cases

Empathy

An overwhelming percentage of respondents indicated they Always (49.4%) or Often (43.82%) feel compassion for people even those they do not know; Always (51.4%) or Often (27.2%) tell a staff member to take the day off if he/she is upset; and Always (48.3%) or Often (39.3%) are quick to notice when someone in a group feels uncomfortable. More than one-third (35.9%) answered Perhaps or Probably Not when asked if they are able to make decisions without being influenced by people’s feelings. However, more than one-fourth (28%) indicated that they would not (or were unsure if they would) celebrate special events (birthdays, etc.) with staff.

Openness

Many respondents replied that they Always (25.85%) or Often (62.9%) try to understand people better by seeing an issue from another point of view, while much smaller percentages replied that when they are angry or upset, they Always (15.7%) or Often (38.2%) try to imagine other people’s point of view. Most respondents said they Always (37%) or Often (43.82) accept people’s differences rather than try to change them and Always (31.4%) or Often (55%) encourage staff to challenge their ideas. Yet, close to 20% of respondents were not sure about or were even resistant to accepting difference. Lastly, approximately 31% were not sure about the answers their staff would give if asked to describe their weaknesses as bosses.

Ethics

Most respondents answered Always or Often when asked if confidentiality comes easily to them (95.5%) and when asked if they would say something if undercharged for an item (82%). When asked if they would push legal/ethical issues to the limit to benefit their clients, 46% said Probably Not or Never, while 20.2% said Often and 24.7% answered Perhaps. However, close to one-fourth (23.6%) said they Often would tell a harmless lie if it protected their team or a client, and 34.8% were uncertain.

Results were significant (see Table 3) for three out of four questions on the Ethics disposition when Years of Experience was examined. Those with experience of 20 plus years indicated that confidentiality came easily (p = 0.005); they would push legal/ethical issues to the limit to benefit people in their organization (p = 0.027); and they would point out a clerk’s error in undercharging, more than those who have worked in nonprofits for less than 20 years (p = 0.003).

Table 3.

Gender and Experience levels of significance (p < 0.05)

Survey question Gender Experience
t value Significance t value Significance
Q10. I prefer to take risks 7.367 0.008
Q15. I am able to make decisions without being influenced by other people’s feelings 7.347 0.008
Q16. My work schedule makes it difficult to tend to my health and fitness needs 5.586 0.020
Q18. Maintaining confidentiality comes easy to me 8.383 0.005
Q20. I tend to feel compassion for people even though I do not know them 3.926 0.000
Q21. I would point out a clerk’s error in undercharging me 2.683 0.025 4.458 0.003
Q22. My work schedule allows me to spend quality time with family/friends 3.103 0.003
Q31. I still think about work after I go home 7.038 0.010
Q32. I try to understand people better by seeing things from their point of view 4.907 0.029
Q35. I would push legal/ethical issues to the limit if it benefits the people our organization serves 5.048 0.027
Q37. I balance work and life well 2.858 0.005
Q41. It is important to me to express my true beliefs even if it involves engaging in difficult conversations with my team/staff 5.997 0.016
Q44. I know what my team/staff would say if asked to describe my weakness as a boss 4.041 0.048 7.131 0.009
Q45. Members of my team/staff have cried to me or shared personal issues 1.998 0.049 7.439 0.008
Q52. People can count on me being who I am regardless of what setting we are in 4.220 0.043
Q54. I discuss career goals and strategies for achieving these goals with members of my team/staff 2.175 0.032
Q56. I have made organizational decisions based on the ideas of my team and staff 6.315 0.014
Open in a new tab

Trust

Close to 98% of respondents Always or Often have made organizational decisions based on ideas of their staff; yet only 59.4% of respondents replied the same when asked if they trust people’s judgment, while 38.2% were undecided. Respondents replied Often when asked if they needed frequent project updates from staff (48.3%), and if they needed to be very detailed and specific when explaining projects to staff (32.5%). Lastly, slightly more than half (51.6%) had no difficulty delegating to staff, while 33.7% were unsure about their delegation skills.

Transformational versus transactional leadership

Ninety-five percent of respondents replied Always or Often when asked about staff being fully dedicated and committed to their work/organization, while 76% chose the same responses when asked if staff would describe the respondent as an inspirational and motivational leader. The majority (69.3%) replied Always or Often with being more comfortable with big picture thinking rather than day-to-day operations, although more than one-fourth (26.1%) were uncertain. Respondents said they Always or Often know where potential opportunities exist (88.7%); keep staff focused on these opportunities and future goals, not past achievements (71.9%); and expect staff to follow procedures and protocols closely (82%). Finally, respondents were split somewhat evenly when asked whether they value product more than process, with Always, Often, Perhaps, and Probably Not receiving one-fourth, more-or-less, of the responses.

Professional support

When asked if respondents are comfortable providing constructive feedback to staff, 77.2% answered Always or Often, and 85.2% also indicated the same responses when asked if they assign challenging tasks to staff. While approximately 95% of respondents indicated that they Always or Often have hired people who have become successful in their positions, 40.4% said that they probably or definitely could not find someone on their team to easily replace them if the respondent suddenly left his/her current position, and another 37.2% were undecided. Further, only 14.9% of respondents Always make time to discuss career goals and strategies with their staff. Lastly, female respondents were significantly more likely to discuss career goals and strategies for achieving these goals with staff members (p = 0.032).

Prudence

Respondents replied Always or Often when asked if their schedules interfere with their health/fitness needs (64%); if they check work email when vacationing (79.54%); or if they think of work after they arrive home (92%). Close to one-third (31.4%) said they do not balance work and life well, while another one-third (32.5%) said they were undecided on whether they balance both worlds well. One-third (36.3%) were undecided on whether their work schedule interferes with spending quality time with family and friends.

Tests of significance indicated that data analyzed by Gender were significantly different in three out of five questions within this category. When compared to male leaders, a greater number of female leaders responded that they could not balance work–life (p = 0.005) and that their work schedules interfered with spending quality time with family (p = 0.003) and tending to health/fitness needs (p = 0.020).

Authenticity

While 95.5% of respondents indicated that people could count on them to be the same person, regardless of the setting, 97.7% indicated that their values/beliefs guide their actions/decisions at work. Close to 15% said they Always or Often put aside personal convictions to satisfy their organization’s board of directors, with another 40.9% undecided on whether they have done or would do this. Approximately 72% of respondents also replied Always or Often when asked if it is important to express their true beliefs, even if it involves difficult conversations with staff, while 41.3% said they Always or Often have expressed frustration in front of staff.

Grit

An overwhelming majority answered Always or Often when asked if they persevere during challenging times (98.8%); if they are flexible and adaptable (94.3%); if they are problem solvers (94.3%); and if their past prepared them for their future (95.4%), while most (79.0%) respondents gave the same answers when asked if they had multiple strategies for getting things that are important to them in life. Lastly, while 38% said that they Often prefer to take risks, slightly more than half (51.6%) were uncertain if they would classify themselves as risk takers.

When results were compared for the Grit items and Years of Experience, respondents with experience of 20 plus years indicated that they preferred taking risks (p = 0.008) more than those who have been working in nonprofits for less than 20 years. Interestingly, there was no significance between Years of Experience and the item, My past experiences have prepared me for my future.

Discussion

The present study intended to provide insight into nonprofit leaders’ (from human services sectors) dispositions. According to Peterson and Seligman (2004), humans are organized by specific qualities determining their responses during challenging moments. Considering the challenges associated with running a nonprofit organization, it was expected that those who choose to stay in such positions would possess most, if not all, of the research-supported dispositions.

Except for “prudence”, participants demonstrated convincing evidence that they possessed each disposition examined, with “grit” being the most prominent. Perhaps individuals who achieve such high-level leadership positions do so through their passion for improving organizations and their internal drive and ability to overcome challenges and navigate obstacles. Researchers have shown that grit, perseverance, and self-discipline are collectively associated with goal attainment (Duckworth et al. 2007).

Prudence was the one disposition that did not rate as dominant in all respondents. Most respondents spent more time engaged in work-related rather than personal/family-related activities, which raises concerns about work–life balance. Work–life interference is often linked to burnout and turnover (Boamah and Laschinger 2016). Significance tests revealed that female respondents struggled more with balancing their professional and personal roles than male respondents and confirmed that work–life balance continues to be an ongoing barrier for female leaders (American Association of University Women 2016). A study of 3000 nonprofit leaders also found that men are substantially more likely to report a healthy work–life balance than women and highlighted the need for professional development that promotes a greater balance between nonprofit leaders’ professional and personal lives (Cornelius et al. 2011).

Data on the Ethics items also generated reflection. Less than half of the respondents indicated that they would not tell a harmless lie or push legal/ethical issues to the limit if it benefited their team or the organization’s clients. Nevertheless, one-fourth were uncertain about their behavior if faced with such situations, and another one-fourth agreed with telling a harmless lie. Additionally, respondents working 20 or more years as a nonprofit leader were significantly more likely to push ethical/legal issues to the limit, suggesting that these leaders believed their extensive experience made them more adept at navigating and manipulating the systems within which they operated than a more novice leader. While, at times, there may be ethical areas that are cloudy and where leaders have some room to circumvent the system to serve clients and staff, rationalizing behaviors as being in the best interest of the organization and those it could be problematic. Reputation is critical since nonprofits rely heavily on grants and donations to maintain operations. The National Nonprofit Ethics Survey of 2007 found that nonprofits have stronger ethical cultures and deeply rooted ethical values than other sectors (business and government). Leadership establishes and reinforces these ethical cultures (Ethics Resource Center 2007).

Another interesting finding was that study respondents indicated that they provided staff with feedback and made good hires; however, the majority were unable to report with certainty that there would be a suitable replacement for their position if they were to leave. This finding is also related to the sizable percentage of respondents who were unsure if they trusted other people's judgment since it would be necessary to evaluate a candidate's suitability as a replacement for their position. Further, most respondents (specifically male) indicated that they did not discuss career goals with their staff. Other studies also have found that women are more likely to spend time mentoring and supporting their staff in advancing professionally (Chamorro-Premuzic and Gallop 2020; Zenger and Folkman 2019). In addition, this finding raises concerns about the lack of importance that leaders place on succession planning, which is critical to nonprofit success and growth. Nonprofit leaders must take responsibility for preparing rising leaders within their organizations (Gothard and Austin 2013). Although succession management is typically the board's responsibility, it requires collaboration from the current executive director, and boards must focus on supporting executive directors to participate in this kind of systematic planning (Hunter and Decker-Pierce 2021). Successful planning involves paying close attention to rising leaders who possess the dispositions, skills, and strengths that align with the mission and values of the nonprofit organization (Cao et al. 2006).

Given the connection between certain dispositions and high-level nonprofit leadership positions, it is recommended that graduate leadership preparation programs, as well as nonprofit professional development programs, make a concerted effort to include opportunities to cultivate leader dispositions. First and most importantly, nonprofits must invest funding in leadership development. According to research by the Foundation Center, historically, nonprofits have not devoted funding to leadership development, and the social sector spends $29 (compared with $120 by the corporate sector) per employee for such training (Callanan 2014). Non-profits and their boards would benefit from collaborating with higher education institutions to develop training programs that focus on a mix of leadership dispositions and pragmatic skills, which would address nonprofit challenges such as succession planning (Hunter and Decker-Pierce 2021).

Empathy continues to be misunderstood and underappreciated in the workplace (Marques 2013). However, empathy is the basis for human connection, which is necessary for fostering supportive work environments, and participants in this study rated high on most items aligned with this disposition. Empathy can be cultivated in nonprofit leadership preparation and development programs by encouraging self-awareness in students; promoting positive interpersonal interactions among classmates; and emphasizing the importance of offering constructive feedback sensitively and receiving it with grace (Socas 2018).

Compelling research indicates that leadership strengths, dispositions, and grit can be cultivated through training and practice (Seguin 2019). Grit training should involve practical strategies to promote focus and stamina. Some strategies to promote focus include visualizing goal accomplishment, engaging in behavior similar to one’s role models, helping individuals establish a sense of meaning in their work, and promoting a growth mindset. Increasing stamina involves emphasizing the importance of practice and hard work and encouraging individuals to take risks. Also, it is essential to emphasize that making mistakes is necessary for learning, promoting the character strength of resiliency (Perkins-Gough 2013).

In addition, nonprofit leadership development programs must integrate lessons on ethics and emphasize the importance of accountability and compliance systems and codes of conduct, which all contribute to an organizational culture of ethics (Ethics Resource Center 2008; Rhode and Packel 2009). Leadership education programs must ensure that their students have a deeply rooted sense of their values and ethics and ways this is demonstrated in their roles as nonprofit leaders. Through analysis and discussion of case studies presenting ethical dilemmas and through role-playing based on the ethical “grey” areas, students can examine and expand on their value systems, ethical philosophies, and codes of conduct. A student should be asked to explore the complexities inherent in the relationship between ethical and legal issues and debate various ethical decision-making models. Since leaders often influence organizational culture, ethics lessons must be at the core of leadership programs.

Lastly, nonprofit leaders would benefit from training that involved mindfulness exercises that may contribute to a more balanced work–life combination, which impacts professional burnout and high turnover rates. Studies have suggested that when leadership development programs incorporate mindfulness strategies in the curriculum, there are positive results, such as an increased ability to manage professional pressure, decreased stress, and increased self-care (Wasylkiw et al. 2015; Dix et al. 2021; Sanyal and Rigg 2021). Not only has developing mindfulness in leaders been shown to positively impact leadership effectiveness (Wasylkiw et al. 2015), but such training also supports leaders in examining their beliefs, dispositions, and behavior while cultivating new competencies (Grendel and Roe Stamell 2016).

The present study extends our understanding of key dispositions associated with nonprofit leaders, and these data are valuable as a springboard to future, more in-depth studies. However, the current research also had its share of limitations. First, this study lacks generalizability since the sample was small and limited to one state. Additionally, while descriptive statistics were essential for this research, such statistical approaches only offer limited insights into the gathered data. Second, the survey measured respondents’ self-perceptions of leadership strengths, which may differ from the way their staff and/or supervisors perceive their leadership abilities and character. Finally, although the items on the survey used in this study were designed around research-based leadership dispositions, the validity of the instrument could be established through more rigorous methods.

Conclusions and recommendations for future studies

The findings of this study are important to at least three groups of professionals. First, nonprofit organizations will benefit from insight into the dispositions of those who rise to the level of executive directors and lead their organizations. This information will assist nonprofits in knowing the important strengths to cultivate when developing future leaders from within nonprofits and when creating succession plans. Second, higher education leadership programs and nonprofit leadership development programs will benefit from information on the important dispositions found in high-level nonprofit leaders. Aware of this information, leadership educators can integrate valuable strategies in the curriculum and create lessons to better develop specific traits/dispositions. Lastly, participants (current nonprofit leaders) will gain a better understanding of their dispositions (e.g., motivations for assuming a leadership position, determinants for the way they lead, areas of growth, etc.) that may contribute to enhanced skills as nonprofit leaders. In turn, this will benefit their staffs, their organizations, and the people these organizations serve. Finally, if all stakeholders (leaders, nonprofits, and higher education) understand the critical dispositions of nonprofit leaders, leadership development can be adapted to better meet the needs of current and emerging nonprofit leaders, which will strengthen the daily operations of nonprofit organizations. More effectively managed nonprofits lead to improved services for people in society.

Future studies using follow-up interviews to deconstruct the leadership dispositions examined in this study would be beneficial to understand the dispositions better. Additional studies that examine potential correlations between specific leadership dispositions of a nonprofit leader and a successful organization (e.g., perhaps defined by such variables as positive, open climates or financial robustness) could provide useful information to both nonprofits and those in the field of leadership development. Finally, future studies aimed at gathering a larger sample size and include the use of inferential statistics would allow for generalizability.

Author contributions

All authors contributed to the study conception and design. Material preparation, data collection, and analysis were performed by JRD and LAR. The first draft of the manuscript was written by Janet DeSimone and all authors commented on previous versions of the manuscript. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Funding

The authors did not receive funding for the submitted work.

Data availability

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Declarations

Conflict of interest

The authors have no financial or proprietary interests in any material discussed in this article.

Ethical approval

The authors received prior approval to conduct their research from the institutional review board at Lehman College.

Informed consent

The authors received informed consent from the study participants.

References

  1. American Association of University Women (2016) Barriers and bias: the status of women in leadership. https://www.aauw.org/app/uploads/2020/03/Barriers-and-Bias-nsa.pdf
  2. Avolio BJ, Bass BM, Jung DI. Re-examining the components of transformational and transactional leadership using the multi-factor leadership questionnaire. J Occup Organ Psychol. 1999;72(4):441–462. doi: 10.1348/096317999166789. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Avolio BJ, Walumbwa FO, Weber TJ. Leadership: current theories, research, and future directions. Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:421–449. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163621. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  4. Baron Cohen S, Wheelwright S. The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004;34(2):163–175. doi: 10.1023/B:JADD.0000022607.19833.00. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Bass BM. Leadership and performance beyond expectations. New York: Free Press; 1985. [Google Scholar]
  6. Bass BM. The Bass handbook of leadership: theory, research, and managerial applications. 4. New York: Free Press; 2008. [Google Scholar]
  7. Ben-Ner A, Ren T, Paulson DF. A sectoral comparison of wage levels and wage inequality in human services industries. Nonprofit Volunt Sect Q. 2011;40(4):608–633. doi: 10.1177/0899764010365012. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Boamah SA, Laschinger H. The influence of areas of work-life fit and work-life interference on burnout and turnover intentions among new graduate nurses. J Nurs Manag. 2016;24(2):E164–E174. doi: 10.1111/jonm.12318. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Bonner L, Obergas J (2009) Nonprofit leadership development: a model for identifying and growing leaders within the nonprofit sector
  10. Callanan L (2014) Under-investing in social sector leadership. PhilanTopic. February 11. https://pndblog.typepad.com/pndblog/2014/02/underinvesting-in-social-sector-leadership.html
  11. Cao Q, Maruping LM, Takeuchi R. Disentangling the effects of CEO turnover and succession on organizational capabilities: A social network perspective. Organ Sci. 2006;17(5):563–576. doi: 10.1287/orsc.1060.0201. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  12. Carson ED. On leadership in the nonprofit sector. In: Heyman D, editor. Nonprofit management 101: a complete and practical guide for leaders and professionals. San Francisco: Jossey-Bass; 2011. pp. 29–40. [Google Scholar]
  13. Carter SM, Greer CR. Strategic leadership: values, styles, and organizational performance. J Leadersh Organ Stud. 2013;20(4):375–393. doi: 10.1177/1548051812471724. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  14. Chamorro-Premuzic T, Gallop C (2020) Leadership lessons men can learn from women. Harv Bus Rev. https://hbr.org/2020/04/7-leadership-lessons-men-can-learn-from-women
  15. Cooper CD, Scandura TA, Schriesheim CA. Looking forward but learning from our past: potential challenges to developing authentic leadership theory and authentic leaders. Leadersh Quart. 2005;16:475–493. doi: 10.1016/j.leaqua.2005.03.008. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Cornelius M, Moyers R, Bell J. Daring to lead 2011: a national study of executive director leadership. San Francisco: CompassPoint Nonprofit Services and the Meyer Foundation; 2011. [Google Scholar]
  17. Dix D, Norton K, Griffith G. Leaders on a mindfulness-based program: experience, impact, and effect on leadership role. Hum Arenas. 2021 doi: 10.1007/s42087-021-00183-5. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  18. Duckworth AL, Peterson C, Matthews MD, Kelly DR. Grit: Perseverance and passion for long-term goals. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2007;92(6):1087–1101. doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.1087. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Ethics Resource Center (2008) National nonprofit ethics survey. Arlington, VA. p 1–32
  20. Garton A, Gringart E. The development of a scale to measure empathy in 8- and 9-year-old children. Austr J Educ Dev Psychol. 2005;5:7–25. [Google Scholar]
  21. Gibbons MM, Cochran JL, Spurgeon S, Diambra JF. The human factor: student reactions to the integration of personal dispositions into a counseling program. J Human Couns. 2013;52(1):5–22. doi: 10.1002/j.2161-1939.2013.00029.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Goldman EF, Casey A. Building a culture that encourages strategic thinking. J Leadersh Organ Stud. 2010;17:119–128. doi: 10.1177/1548051810369677. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Gothard S, Austin MJ. Leadership succession planning: Implications for nonprofit human service organizations. Adm Soc Work. 2013;37(3):272–285. doi: 10.1080/03643107.2012.684741. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  24. Greenleaf RK. Servant leadership: a journey into the nature of legitimate power and greatness. New York: Paulist Press; 1977. [Google Scholar]
  25. Grendel D, Roe Stamell E (2016) How mindfulness improves executive coaching. Harv Bus Rev. https://hbr.org/2016/01/how-mindfulness-improves-executive-coaching
  26. Hannah ST, Walumbwa FO, Fry LW. Leadership in action teams: team leader and members' authenticity, authenticity strength, and team outcomes. Pers Psychol. 2011;64(3):771–802. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-6570.2011.01225.x. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Hunter T, Decker-Pierce B. Identifying the characteristics and competencies executive directors need to lead human service organizations in today's operating environment: What boards need to know for succession planning. J Nonprofit Educ Leadersh. 2021;11(1):32–53. doi: 10.18666/JNEL-2020-9139. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  28. Jenaro C, Flores N, Arias B. Burnout and coping in human service practitioners. Prof Psychol Res Pract. 2007;38(1):80–87. doi: 10.1037/0735-7028.38.1.80. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Kernis M, Goldman B. A multicomponent conceptualization of authenticity: theory and research. Adv Exp Soc Psychol. 2006;38:283–357. doi: 10.1016/S0065-2601(06)38006-9. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  30. Kifer Y, Heller D, Perunovic WQE, Galinsky AD. The good life of the powerful: the experience of power and authenticity enhances subjective well-being. Psychol Sci. 2013;24(3):280–288. doi: 10.1177/0956797612450891. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  31. Kirkpatrick SA, Locke EA. Direct and indirect effects of three-charismatic leadership components on performance and attitudes. J Appl Psychol. 1996;81(1):36–51. doi: 10.1037/0021-9010.81.1.36. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  32. Kunreuther F, Segal P, Clohesy S (2013) The leadership in leaving. Building Moving Project. https://buildingmovement.org/wp-content/uploads/2019/08/The-Leadership-in-Leaving.pdf
  33. Landles-Cobb L, Kramer K, Smith Milway K (2015) The nonprofit leadership development deficit. Stanf Soc Innov Rev. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/the_nonprofit_leadership_development_deficit
  34. Leslie JB, Chandrasekar A, Barts D (2015) Leadership gap indicator. Greensboro, NC: Center for Creative Leadership. https://nextsteppartners.com/wp-content/uploads/2016/12/LGI_NSP_BRANDED_Overview_wSamples_12_7_16_SM.pdf
  35. Marques J. Understanding the strength of gentleness: soft-skilled leadership on the rise. J Bus Ethics. 2013;116(1):163–171. doi: 10.1007/s10551-012-1471-7. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  36. Martin H, Gehling K, Buteau E (2021) Persevering though crisis: the state of nonprofits. The Center for Effective Philanthropy. https://cep.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/06/CEP_Persevering-through-Crisis_2021.pdf
  37. Miller M. Transformational leadership behaviours and empathy with action. Transformation. 2009;26(1):45–59. doi: 10.1177/0265378809102176. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  38. Northouse PG. Leadership: theory and practice. 9. Thousand Oaks: Sage; 2021. [Google Scholar]
  39. Pearce CL, Waldman DA, Csikszentmihalyi M. Virtuous leadership: a theoretical model and research agenda. J Manag Spiritual Relig. 2010;3(1):60–77. doi: 10.1080/14766080609518611. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  40. Perkins-Gough D. The significance of grit: A conversation with Angela Lee Duckworth. Educ Leadersh. 2013;71(1):14–20. [Google Scholar]
  41. Peterson C, Seligman MEP. Character strengths and virtues: a handbook and classification. Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association; 2004. [Google Scholar]
  42. Pfeffer J. Leadership B.S.: fixing workplaces and careers one truth at a time. New York: Harper Business; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  43. Regan K. Leadership identity formation in nonprofit human service organizations. Manag Leadersh Govern. 2016;40(5):435–440. [Google Scholar]
  44. Rhode DL, Packel AK (2009) Ethics and nonprofits. Stanf Soc Innov Rev. Summer. https://ssir.org/articles/entry/ethics_and_nonprofits#
  45. Rushton JP. The altruistic personality and the self-report altruism scale. Personal Individ Differ. 1981;2(4):293–302. doi: 10.1016/0191-8869(81)90084-2. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  46. Salamon LM, Sokolowski SW. The resilient sector revisited: the new challenge to nonprofit America. 2. Washington, D.C.: Brookings Institution Press; 2015. [Google Scholar]
  47. Sanyal C, Rigg C. Integrating mindfulness into leadership development. J Manag Educ. 2021;45(2):243–264. doi: 10.1177/1052562920934040. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  48. Schriesheim CA, Liu Y. Distinguished scholars invited essay: becoming a good sport and a better performer: a social information processing view of authentic leadership. J Leadersh Organ Stud. 2018;25(2):141–152. doi: 10.1177/1548051817740323. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  49. Seguin C. A survey of nurse leaders to explore the relationship between grit and measures of success and well-being. J Nurs Admin. 2019;49(3):125–131. doi: 10.1097/NNA.0000000000000725. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  50. Skinner C, Spurgeon P. Valuing empathy and emotional intelligence in health leadership: a study of empathy, leadership behaviour and outcome effectiveness. Health Serv Manag Res. 2005;18(1):1–12. doi: 10.1258/0951484053051924. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  51. Smith BN, Montagno RV, Kuzmenko TN. Trans-formational and servant leadership: content and contextual comparisons. J Leadersh Organ Stud. 2004;10(4):80–91. doi: 10.1177/107179190401000406. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  52. Socas J. Empathy: the key ingredient for better leadership. Int Leadersh J. 2018;10(1):98–110. [Google Scholar]
  53. Sosik JJ. Leading with character: stories of valor and virtue and the principles they teach. Charlotte: Information Age Publishing; 2006. [Google Scholar]
  54. Stewart AJ, Kuenzi K. The nonprofit career ladder: exploring career paths as leadership development for future nonprofit executives. Public Person Manag. 2018;47(4):359–381. doi: 10.1177/0091026018783022. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  55. Te N (2021) Nonprofit leadership impact study: a new outlook for nonprofits in the years ahead. Nonprofit Pro. https://www.nonprofitpro.com/promo/npp-2021-nonprofit-leadership-impact-study/
  56. Tierney TJ. Understanding the nonprofit sector’s leadership deficit. Lead Lead. 2006;2006:13–19. doi: 10.1002/ltl.347. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  57. Van Dierendonck D. Servant leadership. A review and synthesis. J Manag. 2011;37:1228–1261. [Google Scholar]
  58. Walumbwa FO, Avolio BJ, Gardner WL, Wernsing TS, Peterson SJ. Authentic leadership: development and validation of a theory-based measure. J Manag. 2008;34(1):89–126. [Google Scholar]
  59. Wasylkiw L, Holton J, Azar R, Cook W. The impact of mindfulness on leadership effectiveness in a health care setting: a pilot study. J Health Organ Manag. 2015;29(7):893–911. doi: 10.1108/JHOM-06-2014-0099. [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  60. Watson LD, Hoefer R. Developing nonprofit and human service leaders: essential knowledge and skills. Los Angeles: SAGE Publications Inc; 2014. [Google Scholar]
  61. Welch D, Grossaint K, Reid K, Walker C. Strengths-based leadership development: Insights from expert coaches. Consult Psychol J Pract Res. 2014;66(1):20–37. doi: 10.1037/cpb0000002. [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  62. Zenger J, Folkman J (2019) Research: women score higher than men in most leadership skills. Harv Bus Rev. https://hbr.org/2019/06/research-women-score-higher-than-men-in-most-leadership-skills

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Data Availability Statement

The datasets generated during and/or analyzed during the current study are available from the corresponding author on reasonable request.

Articles from Sn Business & Economics are provided here courtesy of Nature Publishing Group

RESOURCES